Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Character
The core issue under scrutiny was Al Gore's impressive hypocrisy as it relates to his mansion and its energy consumption in comparison to his Inconvenient rhetoric. One of the lefties -- in my view, at least an intellectually honest lefty -- was prepared to call Gore out for the hypocrisy. The other, my famed debating partner Screwy, was more reluctant.
A similar problem has, as we know, clamped onto John Edwards ankle. That would be the Two Americas guy who has a shiny new 20,000 square foot castle. I wonder which one he longs to lead.
Both of these fellows are populist candidates with a ringing anti-corporate, anti-business, anti-executive shtick. And yet both live like corporate titans.
Personally, I have no problem with a successful person who rings the bell having a big house, plenty of cars, whatever. That's America. But the chutzpah to tell everybody how they should live -- when they don't even pretend to manage a conservative (or conservationist) lifestyle -- is beyond off-putting. It is a powerful reflection of a repugnant lack of integrity. And I'm not even getting -- yet -- to the Geffen indictment of the Clinton's lack of veracity. Is it possible that a majority of the American public will overlook or ignore these character flaws when they are so well known and documented? Perhaps. Or people will prioritize differently depending upon their individual politics and their taste for indiscretion (which type of hypocrisy do you prefer?).
Now, I think as politics and partisanship get more intense over the next 18 months, scrutiny will be applied to the other significant candidates in the field - Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Romney. And if character matters, as I think it does to most of the American public, the parties will find themselves in very different places as the primaries, and the general election, unfold.
26 Comments:
By 
allen, at
Wed Feb 28, 03:50:00 PM:
Al Gore is not alone in his "impressive hypocrisy".
Think about this for a minute:
Tokyo had 1st winter without snow on record+
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Feb 28, 04:54:00 PM:
Character counts, not perfection. Disengenuity is a poor quality for one who would take a moral stance on any issue. Gore deserves the flack he is receiving, but the larger issue of conservation and our shared interests does not deserve to be smeared with the same brush. I have heard too much here and in other decidedly right-of-center circles that leads me to believe there is more of substance for us to discuss rather than merely casting stones at hypocrites. There is no high ground to be gained in that, however satisfying it may be to expose inconsistancy in the high and mighty. It is just shooting fish in a barrel in which we all swim.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Feb 28, 05:11:00 PM:
Greenman Tim: It is true that the issue -- conservation in this case -- should be distinguished from the Inconvenient messenger. But, as you know, environmental issues are not necessarily "cut and dried" as they say. And the prescriptions for many of these issues are legitimate areas of disagreement and debate, even if we agree on the noble aim or conservation. I agree with your poin that the issue isn't political -- frankly, it is almost more religious, than political. But the prescriptions are definitely political. They disproportionately impact some and benefit others. They have costs. And they are not necessarily "proven", or "right" or even "necessary" in some cases.
And when an author and primary proponent of certain prescriptives is as profoundly hypocritical as Gore (or Edwards, or others) have shown themselves to be, it must taint the discussion of at least certain of their prescriptions, no?
To use a different example where Gore messed about earlier, I think of the pharmaceutical industry. Many of his prescriptions there would be catastrophic for the future development of innovative, life-improving compounds.
So I don't trust him, and wish he wasn't viewed as the leading spokesperson for an important topic like this.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Feb 28, 05:56:00 PM:
I contend it is tribal rhetoric, not behavior, that rules in many political circles. Bush is from the Business Tribe, so everything he does which is green will be held of no account. Gore and Edwards are from the Arts & Humanities Tribe, and their rhetoric on environmental issues identifies them as such. Political rhetoric creates an atmosphere of someone being "our guy," or "someone who understands us." This impression often trumps fact.
By allen, at
Wed Feb 28, 07:40:00 PM:
"Think about this for a minute:
Tokyo had 1st winter without snow on record+"
Winter will not end in Japan until 20 March 2007.
I doubt the public will note this, it being a fact and all.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Feb 28, 07:41:00 PM:
"The better a man is, the more mistakes will he make--for the more new things he will try. I would never promote a man into a top level job who had not made mistakes, and big ones at that. Otherwise he is sure to be mediocre." -- Management guru Peter Drucker, "The Practice of Management" (1954)
By Escort81, at
Wed Feb 28, 10:23:00 PM:
CP -
How important can character be to the electorate in picking a President? Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were elected with a plurality and then re-elected (in Nixon's case, with a big landslide majority). Admirers of both would admit that "character" was not their biggest strong suit.
I would like to agree with you that character is a primary determinative factor (I wish it were so), but I believe it is secondary for the majority of U.S. voters. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean when using the term, but I am guessing we are on the same wavelength.
Why do you believe it is so important to the voters?
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Feb 28, 11:11:00 PM:
I agree with Greenman Tim and want to generalize the point a bit. The prevalent reaction to hypocrisy these days appears to be this: someone who disagrees with the position asserted by the hypocrite points out the hypocrisy for the purpose of discrediting the position asserted. Well, that's dumb as a bag of hammers.
The validity of the position asserted can depend on a whole bunch of factors, but whether the person asserting that position acts in a manner consistent with it is almost always irrelevant to whether the asserted position is correct. The people pointing our the hypocrisy should be the other camp, i.e., those who agree with the position asserted. These people should be calling out the hypocrite for the purpose of causing him to conform his actions with his statements. Needless to say, this works across the board -- whether we're talking about Ted Haggard or Al Gore.
By 
, at
Wed Feb 28, 11:45:00 PM:
AL GORE is just like another wealthy eco-freak hypotcrit TED TURNER the same one who tried to brainwash kids with leftist programs like CAPTIAN PLANET,ONE CHILD ONE VOICE a wealthy hypotcrit who was once married to HANOI JANE
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 01, 09:01:00 AM:
I love you, Bird of Paridise [sic].
CP,
Find me the man who lives a perfect life, and we'll get together and vote for him.
You would have the perfect be the enemy of the good. You would claim that conservation is a virtue over which we can debate the particulars, but I'm guessing there's maybe not so much conservation going on in your home.
Just a guess. I could be wildly wrong.
McCain a straight talker? Hardly.
Giuliani a man of character? Ask his wives and mistress.
Romney a steady hand? Ask the LGBT community who he once supported.
It's easy to go pointing out this sort of thing.
Now can you move on to something substantive like how you'd like to see conservation encouraged?
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 01, 10:26:00 AM:
A couple of responses:
1) I think character matters enormously, but the American public gives candidates the benefit of the doubt. Nixon was chucked out due to his extraordinary character failures, which were unknown during the elections of 68 ans 72. The reaction was to elect Jimmy Carter, who was perceived as aqueaky clean, ex Navy, former governor and a human rights guy (and clearly very religious, claiming a high moral ground). The electorate overlooked Clinton's cagracter flaws because they were unproven. We shouldn't forget that he too was impeached over them (though he chose not to resign). I don't beleive Clinton would be relected today.
Eisenhower and Reagan were clearly character guys.
So it ain't everything, but I think it does matter to the electorate.
and 2)
Nobody is perfect. No question about it. But if you look at how certain individuals have carried themselves in public and private, I have a hard time condemning the character flaws of John McCain (though I disagree with him, and wouldn't vote for him in the primaries). When it's all said and done, I consider him extraordinary, and certainly a man of great character -- though of course flawed. I would say the same of Rudy -- deeply flawed in the conduct of his personal life, but in some sense, quite honest and transparent about it. He doesn't live a fake life. I think his conduct in his public life has also been imperfect, but he has demonstrated extraordinary character and fortitude and courage under duress. I value that. Certainly a man of character. Romney strikes me as less powerfully that, because he hasn't faced the adverse conditions in his life that the others have. His personal and public life have both been conducted in exemplary fashion, but he hasn't faced the tests that the others have.
I am substantially less impressed with Gore, Edwards, Hillary or Obama. As measured on the character score, the life challenges test, etc, I think they're all lightweights.
3) As to my own conservation practices, i live in Manhattan, so I don't have any extraordinary pluses or minuses in my conservation scorecard in the city. I love cars, and there I am definitely a bad boy. My only good guy on that front is I don't put any mileage on them. But I love them, and I don't want the govt telling me what I can and can't drive.
FWIW, I think our nation does do an extraordinary job -- considering our unparalleled economic development -- keeping our environment clean. I have travelled extensively -- Latin America, Europe, Asia...and nobody does the job we do preserving what we have. Are we perfect? No. Are we really very good? Yes.
I am a big believer that technology will continue to improve the prospects for better conservation -- whether its agricultural biotechnology (which will help us more broadly distribute more nutrition to more people at lower cost; and will help us develop mass volume energy alternatives) or other important innovations in how to more efficiently deliver clean energy...and it will be the US private sector which leads the way...not the govt. The solution is for us to go forward with technology, not backward.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 01, 10:41:00 AM:
By GreenmanTim, at
Thu Mar 01, 11:00:00 AM:
I like the substantive turn this convervation discussion is taking. We have made extraordinary gains in this country in the past 4 decades in cleaning up our air and water, but we didn't do that with nothing but voluntary action by individuals and self-regulation by industry. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts provided the enabling regulatory framework for those changes to take place nationally, while market-based incentives encouraged new technological innovation of precisely the kind that CP anticipates will help us get even cleaner in the future.
Lest we get too self-congratulatory, we would do well to note that some areas of the country are decidedly less clean and the role of state government and industry is an aggravating factor. The practice of mountain top removal and valley fill in the coalfields of Appalachia comes immediately to mind but there are other eggregious examples.
I would add at this point that I believe these environmental laws were the appropriate province of the national government and not the individual states, both because of the scale of the problem and the impacts of one state's choices on the rights and resources of another.
Let me be clear: It is not the proper role of government to unilaterally take your guns, put your sportscar in storage, turn off the juice and lower your standard of living. It is the proper role of government to work at the national, region and local levels with the private sector to ensure that those natural resources which are truly the "Common Wealth" are safeguarded and stewarded for future generations.
There are opportunities for the each of these sectors to contribute what they do best to find the best solution to the conservation challenges we face, but it will take significant effort to align interests with strategies. I'm excited by the possibilities, though.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 01, 11:42:00 AM:
GmT\: how do you feel about Alaska and oil exploration?
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 12:08:00 PM:
Conflicted, not surprisingly. Positives include the fund the state has created from oil revenue that pays annual dividends to every man woman and child who lives in the state ($1,100 per capita, I believe, this year), and the important contribution that existing oil fields make to our national economy.
Dang, it's hard to post comments now. Anyone else having to send a dozen times before it takes?
Balanced against that would be disasters like Prince William Sound (my sister spent a research summer there pre-Exxon Valdez and another one cleaning up wildlife afterward) and the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I am not convinced needs to be compromised to expand oil exploration and extraction. In general, I am uncomfortable with relaxing standards of environmental protection and am suspicious of the motivations of those who would do so. I can recognize exceptions to this rule (delisting rare species that have made dramatic and sustained recoveries) but believe they are exceptions.
It does not always have to be all one thing or the other. You can have thoughtful, limited development that retains many of the ecological qualities of a large piece of property and I do those kinds of land deals every year. But it is very hard work to ensure that that is the outcome and not a "greenwash." The Nature Conservancy got in some very hot water several years ago when it was learned that it permitted gas extraction on one of its preserves in rare prairie chicken habitat.
If we were seriously to contemptate oil exploration and recovery from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in an environmentally sensitive manner, I would not want the federal and state governments and the oil companies to be designing the management plans, determining performance standards and monitoring the effects of their efforts all on their own: foxes and the henhouses are a bad mix. Public comment periods are not sufficient to inform such efforts.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 01, 12:32:00 PM:
Here in Asheville, NC, we're fighting aganst a corrupt county commission that met behind closed doors with a leading energy provider for two years. The commission leased 78-acres of land to the company for $1 in perpetuity.
If alternative energies received this sort of government subsidy, we'd see the "free market" of alternative energies take off. But the simple fact is that everything is petroleumcentric, so to speak.
House Democrats chose to eliminate $14 billion dollars in Oil Company subsidies, and this is the kind of thing that will help to level the market playing field. However, in order to sput the growth of thousands of alternative energy entrepreneurs, we ought to be offering temporary subsidies for R&D to qualifying organizations.
Conservation is a virtue we can promote and choose not to tie to negative imagery. Alternative energies, which are by necessity the future of our nation's energy sources, must be promoted as well.
We'll need oil for a long time to come, but we'll eventually need to stop sucking at that nipple and instea become independent and sustainable.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 01, 02:29:00 PM:
Let me be clear: It is not the proper role of government to unilaterally take your guns, put your sportscar in storage, turn off the juice and lower your standard of living. It is the proper role of government to work at the national, region and local levels with the private sector to ensure that those natural resources which are truly the "Common Wealth" are safeguarded and stewarded for future generations.
I simply don't agree with this sentiment. to me the role of the government is to provide for the common defense and not much else.
While the goal stated by GMT seems lofty and angelic it is still the government intruding in our lives.
The term "common wealth" is particularly offensive. Recently I stood on property that could not even be given away by the owner. The government in its zeal for protection of the "common wealth" had declared the property a wet land. Now the owner could do NOTHING on the land. He tried to give it to a neighboring state park and they refused it because even they could do nothing with it.
sorry guys, but that's a taking, there is no doubt in my mind. The motivations behind this taking are of no consequence. I see no more reason to hand over my property to some government for the sake of the common wealth than I do handing over my property to a drug addict.
Power corrupts and giving power to the government because we wish to "conserve" is a huge mistake. If protecting the environment is such an important task, then sell it at the retail level.
I lived in America's southwest for years. During that time I had ample opportunity to avail myself of the various federal and state operated lands. I have been hounded by parkies for any number of stupid reasons. I recall one b*tch who yelled at me for my failure to obey a rule that she admitted I could not reasonably know. My offense? I had pitched my tent on the wrong side of a dirt road.
NO sir, this is the wrong route. Tyranny in the name of conservation is still tyranny.
One final example: abortion. Right now abortions are legal and widely available. Those people who find abortion abhorrent are forced to prevent them one woman at a time because they cannot outlaw them. Now I am told that in the interest of humanity it is right to use the coercive power of the government in the name of "conservation". Nonsense. Maccaca for the goose is maccaca for the gander.
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 02:59:00 PM:
Skip, there are four states, including PA, by the way, that were established as Commonwealths.
The rest of the Constitution's preamble after "provide for the common defense" includes "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" and the US Supreme Court has broadly done so on many occasions.
And the government has the right, right now, to take your land via eminent domain to serve larger public purposes. The difference, perhaps, is compensation, but private property rights in this country have NEVER been about exclusive enfrancisement of the landowner to do whatever he or she wished, particularly when what was done on one's land adversely affects ones neighbors.
All that is ancillary to the point I was making, above. There are times when the appropriate role of government is to work with the private sector to ensure that those resources that we all use but no one owns (air, marine life) are sustained as part of the genral welfare. There are appropriate times when government safeguards private property rights by regulating the use of natural resources.
There are plenty of times when government is inefficient, insensitive, and intrusive and I will not argue with you there. But nor will I trust my neighbor voluntarily not to foul our shared watershed. I live on the Housatonic, after all, downstream from GE.
By cakreiz, at
Thu Mar 01, 03:20:00 PM:
For some perspective on hypocrisy, right or left, Jonah Goldberg of NRO offered this following the Bennett gambling scandal:
"Hypocrisy is bad, but it's not the worst vice in the world. If I declared "murder is wrong" and then killed somebody, I would hope that the top count against me would be homicide, not hypocrisy. Liberal elites, particularly in Hollywood, believe that hypocrisy is the gravest sin in the world, which is why they advocate their own lifestyles for the entire world: sleep with whomever you want, listen to your own instincts, be true to yourself, blah, blah, blah. Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony."
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 01, 03:43:00 PM:
With all due respect Tim, your argument does not improve with repetition.
The fact that the supremes made a poor decision in Kilo clearly augurs against your position. I understand your point but I simply do not agree. You are advocating the same falacy as Dan when he insisted that I must pay taxes to fund government programs because people don't always make good choices.
further, I believe my position is necessary because without my end of the spectrum the coercive power of the government would know no bounds. Someone must stand against this endless encroachment on our rights.
If you think that GE would only be a good neighbor because of the government's ability to use force against it then you are simply ignoring the power of the people themselves. Back to the abortion issue Tim. Rather than rally people to demand a change in GE, you must only lobby a handful of power hungry tax recievers and voila.
I have no objection to the goal, and I don't wish to be misunderstood on that point. My argument is that the government is NOT always the proper means of achieving this goal.
It is my opinion that the conservation movement is simply shifting its tool set from various other social engineering endeavors to this. Now that transfer payments are here to stay and various other aspects of the socialist agenda are firmly embedded in the American landscape you now wish to control the landscape itself.
You attempted to elide my point: the government's uncompensated taking of anything they call "wet lands". These various regulatory forrays into managing our lives all start with the same lofty aim and all result in the same place: we are once again under the yoke of an unaccountable and non responsive government.
I'm not a survivalist whacko and I recognize that some good has been done by these various efforts. What I don't see is a means to end these efforts once their cost in terms of our freedom exceeds their benefits.
The easiest way to preserve the Anza Borrego desert lands is to simply prevent anyone from using them. The incremental loss of rights is a serious issue Tim and if the only way to conserve such a vast area is to deny us access to its beauty then I'm not all that supportive.
We are suffering the death of a thousand cuts as all sorts of well meaning well intentioned do gooders intrude in our lives.
This intrusion is not the proper role of our government. The founders in their wisdom laid out general principles over which we must debate.
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 04:11:00 PM:
This may be a good place for us both to let it rest, then, Skip. I particularly take note of your point that there needs to be someone like you at your side of the spectrum lest folk closer to my end get to infatuated with government or let it do what it clearly should not. Were we talking about civil liberites and warrentless wiretaps, I might be making the same point as you, so I grant you that right and the value it provides.
Nor do I say lock it all up and keep the people out. My conservation work is all about land and people
I also am prone to longwindedness, so I won't belabor the point.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 01, 08:00:00 PM:
GT,
Thanks for your sobering influence on this thread. Call me when you come to Asheville, NC and I'll be an intoxicating influence.
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 09:22:00 PM:
SH, I shall gladly accept. I'll pop the top with you, too, Skip, should we on day have the chance to meet.
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 01, 09:28:00 PM:
CP -
Thanks for responding to my question about character and the voters. I don't think we're that far apart on our views.
I think you might be right about Nixon -- that, notwithstanding the fact that he had been VP for 8 years during the 1950s, the extent of his character flaws may have been not well known by the general public in 1968. He was seen as a law and order candidate in a very tumultuous year and won by a narrow margin. Those flaws should have been better known by 1972, but I guess if George McGovern is your opponent that year, you could be Sammy Flanagin (sp?; the "yeah...that's the ticket" liar guy from SNL) and still win.
I seriously wonder whether you are right when you say that Bill Clinton would not be elected today. I think he remains hugely popular among parts of the Democratic Party and some independents (and also overseas). There are clearly non-pro-Hillary people (not exactly anti-Hillary, but close) in the Democratic Party who are counting on the concept of "Clinton Fatigue" to weaken her run for the nomination.
I agree with what I think you implied that Clinton should have resigned, based simply upon his bad conduct with Monica (and maybe others). That's one of the reasons there is an Office of the Vice President, so that if a President can't continue to serve, someone is in the on deck circle. It's funny that had Clinton resigned, Gore would have become President, and I think would have won the election as a sitting President in 2000, though I don't believe he could have run again in 2004, depending upon the timing of the hypothetical Clinton resignation. Given where Gore is now ideologically (as compared to 1991, when he voted for Gulf War I in the Senate, and 1998, when the Clinton administration signed legislation calling for regime change in Iraq), I wonder what a Gore presidency would have looked like from 1998-2004, and who his VP would have been, and who would be President now (maybe running for re-election)?
I know some conservatives, including retired military officers, who won't vote for McCain because of "character" issues relating to the perception that he left his wife rather quickly after returning from being a POW in Vietnam -- that she had waited and somehow deserved better. I am not sure the particulars of that episode are well known, and in any case, it was a long time ago and it is hard for me to pass judgment on any of it.
By , at
Thu Mar 01, 11:48:00 PM:
i also hear that TED TURNER logs and mines his own property and the eco-freaks dont pay any attention becuase he pays them they call him DADDY GREENBUCKS
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Mar 02, 11:06:00 AM:
E81 - of course my view of Clinton is jaded, but a couple of thoughts. Number 1, let's recall that he was elected the first time with a plurality, not a majority. He was never so popular as he or the media would like to have believed.
He is a brilliant politician, of this there is little doubt. but he governed during a period of exceptional tranquility. His tests were limited primarily to small dustups --- the Mexican financial crisis; the dissolution of Yugoslavia and ensuing civil war. In the aftermath of his Presidency, significant issues have been raised by some of his former advisers (Richard Clarke, Lou Freeh and others) about their approach to Al Qaeda pre 9/11 but most critically post the 93 WTC bombing. And of course the Sandy Berger flap would actually really matter.
This says nothing of the character issues, now thoroughly known and obvious, that would plague the man if he could run. I can see the video of his finger wagging "I did not blah blah blah" over and over again. His grand jury perjury. The definition of is. All of that would, I think prevent his reelection, if it were possible, in my judgment.
But it's all speculation.
As for McCain, that's terribly sad, but I can't hold a post Hanoi Hilton divorce against the guy. I just can't. For all we know, he did her a favor.
